MANOJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the materials on record.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been brought for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5691 of 2001, State Vs. Manoj initiated on the basis of charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 43 of 2000 under sections 302 and 201, Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. It has been contended by the applicant that with regard to dead body lying in the suspicious circumstances there within the circle of the police station Brahmpuri district Meerut, one report was lodged by Sri Atar Singh opposite party No. 2 at the police station on 8.2.2000 at 6.30 A.M. No one was named in that report. Police after recording statement of Sri Atar Singh, Surendra Pal Sharma, Smt. Kamlesh, Om Dutta Sharma, Km. Nidhi and other formal witnesses submitted charge-sheet. First against Naresh and Amrish for the offences under sections 302 and 201, IPC. Their case was committed to the Court of Sessions and both were tried in S.T. No. 886 of 2002 under sections 302 and 201, IPC. Prosecution examination Sri Om Dutta Sharma- PW-1, Smt. Kamlesh PW-2, Sri Atar Singh- PW-3, Sri Surendar Pal Sharma, PW-4, Km. Nidhi, PW-5 Dr. N. Naithani, PW-6 and Smt. Kamlesh wife of Vishan Swaroop, PW-7 and constable Karan Singh and other papers were also filed which were exhibited in the course of Trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence, rejected the witnesses which were examined by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence and both were acquitted for the offences indicated above. It has further been mentioned by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the police submitted charge-sheet under sections 302 and 201, Penal Code against the accused applicant in the said Case Crime No. 43 of 2000. Even charge-sheet has been submitted on the basis of the evidence and the statement under Sec. 161 of the Code. It has further been mentioned that no useful purpose would be served for prolonging the proceedings when it is a case of no evidence and that very evidence has already been rejected in the trial of co-accused. Principle of stare decisive will apply in the present case. As has also been mentioned two accused namely Naresh and Amrish have already been acquitted for the same offence which is believable evidence adduced by the prosecution. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State, 1999 (81) Delhi Law Time 197 wherein it was held :

(3.) Same view was also taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Amarjit Vs. State (Delhi), 1996 (1) CC Cases 465 . Further in the case of Gulab Khan Vs. State of U.P. Lucknow Bench of this Court, held that 'if two persons are prosecuted though separately under the same charge for the offences, having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatsoever may be, the reason, and the other is convicted then it will create an anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. The principle of State decisive will apply in the present case and conviction cannot be procured.